Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Ok, technically it's true, but I think it's a slant that the media ran with because they are controlled by the Democrats and Republicans and do not want to see a third party become increasingly popular.

So they came up with this slant on the situation to take the wind out of the sails of the third party movement.

While I admire Ralph Nader and his stances on the issues, I still can't help but wonder what might've happened if so many people hadn't voted for him. But then again, how can you blame a guy for running in an election? In fairness to the Republicans, I don't think they'd go around blaming Pat Buchanon if Bush lost.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

They should be questioning an electoral system that makes it so that if a larger segment of the population votes further left, it gives an advantage to the right.

Keep in mind, this can work both ways. By voting libertarian you are stealing votes from the republicans.

--------------------"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Quote:They should be questioning an electoral system that makes it so that if a larger segment of the population votes further left, it gives an advantage to the right.

The system gives an advantage to neither side. It could just have easily have gone the other way. The only difference then would be which side was whining over an election which was run in accordance with existing election law.

Quote:Keep in mind, this can work both ways. By voting libertarian you are stealing votes from the republicans.

It happened with Perot.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

--------------------"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

It could use some improvments, such as an instant runoff so no-one gets in with less than 50%

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

They should be questioning an electoral system that makes it so that if a larger segment of the population votes further left, it gives an advantage to the right.

Keep in mind, this can work both ways. By voting libertarian you are stealing votes from the republicans.

People SHOULD be complaining about Nader but they should ALSO be working to modernize the electoral system.

I had an argument with a friend about this before the 2000 election. He was spouting the old Nader line about how "there's no difference between the two parties." My argument at the time was that even if it means that only ONE fewer person dies needlessly, that is a difference. That is a significant and meaningful difference. If the past three years haven't taught you yet that there IS a difference, I don't know what will.

Nader got something like six or seven thousand votes in Florida alone. Without that swing Gore would have won the state, even WITH the "Old Jewish ladies voting for Buchanan in Dade Country" shenanigans that were going on.

Right now, the FIRST PRIORITY of the left in the US must be to remove Bush from office. If he pulls off this much bullshit in his first term, just imagine what he'll do when he doesn't have a re-election to worry about. There come times in life when you have to put your dreams aside for a moment and deal with REALITY in order to salvage it from becoming a nightmare. When your house is being rocked by a 7.3 earthquake, that's not the time to worry about renovating the interior--just save your fucking life first, and then worry about that shit.

Anybody who votes for Nader in the next election is a naive, misguided fool. I could understand why someone might have done it in 2000, but to do so in 2004 would be a sign of an obtuseness that defies comprehension.

As far as electoral systems go, I personally favor a proportional representation system for the legislature and instant runoffs for national presidential elections. But most Americans are so wedded to the idea that everything about their political system is perfection itself that I highly doubt there would be widespread support for reform.

Has anyone noticed that the Dems are not trying to change the system? They know it could turn out in their favor next time. Getting rid of the electoral college might prove pretty damn difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.

I harbor no illusions about any of the Democratic candidates being perfect, but I'm convinced by now that ANY one of them would be better than Bush. Even Al Sharpton(actually, that would make for some great entertainment over the next 4 years).